Hopefully IW will be smart and implement and clear scoring system for CvC matches and make it where if a clan member from either team leaves the match they get a death and loss added to stats. If more than 2 Clan members leave the match is ended and that clan loses and has a death and loss added to stats. Otherwise clans in CvC will just dashboard/leave the moment they start to lose the match. Also if your clan defaults from a match it should prohibit you from playing for at least 1 hour. This would make the clans be harder on their teammates that left that caused the suspension from CvC matches. Plus if at has any ranking system it should drop any clan that defaults by 5-10-15 ranks depending upon how many defaults they have had in an eight hour session. The suspension should start at 1 hour for first default, and build to 8 hours by the 4 default. Get more then 4 in a day and Clan is suspended from play for the rest of that day.

Meaning if a clan gets a default it would have to wait for 8 hours before it would clear off before they would not have to worry about a harsher punishment if they default again. This would cause the clans to police themselves more and maybe have less quitters since if I understand correcly you need a clan and to be with your clan members to play CvC. So if the clan drops the player because of quitting and that caused them a default that player would not be allowed to play again and thus not worried about quitting again.

This is really how LP in Bo2 should have been as well, no solo players only teams especially in Champions. The teams would have been better and policing their members than probation alone could have ever been.

Not disagreeing with you about the abundance of quitters, but what you propose a clan leader would have to take into account everyone's Internet, weather conditions, ie a storm knocking out power, plus countless other things is a bit much. Especially if it is a larger sized clan, not an issue for mine since I don't go over 10 members, but for the heavyweight clans with up to 100 members could be a different story. Curious to see how the clan v clan works as well as clan wars. I've never dashboarded I have backed out of games when my timing is too far off, doesn't happen often but it does happen.never gotten probation . Read enough people complaining about it , so couldn't even imagine what it would like like if a clan got 8 hours for a few members quitting . I agree with you there should be some sort of deterrent just not to the level your looking for. Of course I say this now once the game comes out and I get a chance to see how it works and how each affects the ranking /scoring system I may have a different point of view.

yes it would be a nighmare for the larger clans and should be really. Each clan should be policing itself and its members on how they are playing the game to begin with. Interal policing though the clans themselves would have a greater effect then any probation system the developers would come up with. Especially if the punsihment earned effected the entire clan at once.

ie' you in a clan where 5 members constantly cause your team to default and loose ranks, points, score(whatever is used for ranking) you would want them out of the clan until they either stopped what they were doing and could prove it, or they got the problem fixed one way or another.

They would not really have to kick them out, just have noone else play with them in CvC until they stopped leaving mid match when they were dieing too much. Not something that hard to do for a clan really.

The right to change your view after release is always there, for it is your view and your right to change it regardless of what I or anyone else would think at that point.

I just thought if the punishment was clan wide and harsh to begin with maybe the clans would police themselves good enoiugh to keep it low compared to all the issues in BO2 LP because of solo players quitting when ever they didnt like how the game was going.

I think your punishments are a bit too strong. Quite a bit to be honest. I too believe there should be some punishment, but not the extent you are talking.

I highly doubt that Elite is going to give the clan leader the stats of which clan members are participating in the games, which ones left early, how often, scores, etc. If they did that, and only if they did that, would your system work. I can't know what my clan members are doing. I'd happily kick people if I knew they were doing lots of quitting (or at least talk to them) but I have no way of knowing who is doing that. And with 100 clan members, you don't get to play together with each of them very often. We have that issue today. They can't even tell us today who enlisted the clan in an operation, so forgive me if I don't have much faith in them adding in all sorts of other data like what you would need for true clan member management of that scale.

It is extremely harsh for a reason to make clans police themselves better. But as you say unless elite gave enough information for the clan to do that it would not really be possible for the leader to really do this.

Your ideas sound nice, at least if there's a queue to fill the empty places some quitters may leave behind.

As long as clans can't run their own servers, on their own "boxes", they have to rely on all kinds of factors. In BO2 we had our whole team go "connection interrupted", both because of laggy servers but also due to Steam problems.

So for example a match of 6 vs 6 should have a queue of 2 per clan. If even that reserve isn't "enough" it's quite obvious they wanted to quit, resulting in a loss they've earned truthfully.

And in game replacement que where players in teh wait could take the place of the quit members would be a good idea. As long as it was limited to just a couple of replacements per match and not a round robin thing where it would continue throughout the entire match.

I was against in bo2 LP because LP allows lone wolfs. Punishing lone wolfs has little effect on them ever. they dont care. Punishing an entire clan and making them deal with the quitter has a greater chance of having a major effect if the clan members and leader took it serious which is why the punishment must be serious and as harsh as the developers are willing to risk.

With CvC in ghosts it sounds like you cant just be a solo player in the playlist that you have to have other clan members in that list with you. meaning if one leaves that one that stayed and would get a default would be not so happy because of it and could report it back to teh clan leader.

Punsihment only works if everyone fears it, lone wolfs dont fear it much because they are a lone wolf and have little to fear or loose since they allready play by themself.

But if CvC disallows that lone wolfs will not be able to enter try and be the star and then leave the moment they are not. It would force it back on team play not individual play which is a key factor to being a lone wolf. The majority of lone wolfs dont give a damn about the team or what happens as long as they get their kills and streaks that is all that matters to them.

Plus remember I am teh devils advocate, in that other thread everyone was all about more no one defending against it. Each discussion needs both a positive and negative to balance it out. A pro and a con a for and an against for the full story or discussion to really have true meaning other than just a group of player complaing because it is not exactly how they want.

I welcome all that disagree with my idea and encourage them to come up with other ideas to make it better if possible or provide reasons why it should not be in at all.

Agreed, I dont really condone quitting just because it is getting rough. the only real time I quit is when the lag just makes the game unplayable and unfair becasue of bullet sponging and ruberbanding. But unless it is done on a clan wide scale it will have no more meaning than probation did in bo2.

They don't need to do all of this probation stuff just after a match you should be able to write on the clans profile stuff and say that this clan leaves matches and give a rating of the clan based a point system and if your clan has a low rating that would mean that your clan leaves matches, cheats, dose not follow rules/regulations ect. With this system people would know not to play those clans. Even if people don't give a fare assesment there is alot of honest clans out there or they can implement something for this like mabe you can apeal and they can evaluate and give you your true rating.

Punishing quitters seems like a good idea, since this happens all the time in BO2, but there are a few reasons why this is probably not needed or could actually be a bad thing.

1) it seems solo rank Leauge from BO2 is gone in Ghosts, so it will be Clans/Parties against each other. Why would a clan member leave his party on purpose? And if he does, It's the clans fault for playing with him. And It ends the game faster, so the opponent team won't have a problem with that either. I have no idea about dashboarding though, at least on the XBone and PC with dedicated servers it shouldn't be a problem.

2) Unstable connection. I'm playing on PC and probably every 5th match one of our teammates gets kicked out of the BO2 (or even Steam) servers. The score loss is more than enough punishment already.

Concerning #2, I would really like to see a Re-Join feature in Clan vs Clan. A player should be able to re-enter a game he was kicked out of, as long as there are still some of his teammates in there. It really sucks to loose games because of TA/IWs shitty servers (sadly this is the #1 reason you loose matches in BO2)

As long as no randoms will be playing in Clan vs Clan, I don't see a reason to leave at all. As for the whole team leaving/dashboarding, they should get a loss, but that's probably enough.

EDIT: A disconnect ratio on their profile would be a good idea. Imho this is a way more important stat than any K/D or W/L.

I don't see a reason to punish anyone. Not saying it is not a good idea. All I am saying is I don't think it is needed. From my understanding is that it will be based on a win system. So people leave, rage quit, get disconnected, have issues with lag, etc. the other team benefits. Easy win is the way I see it.

It should still be discouraged for it affects the rest of the team that they leave behind. So it does still have an effect on the other players in the match.

effect on what other players? if the clan is dysfunctional, what harm does it bring upon your clan? Non

I have read a lot of good points on both sides. But the bottom line is it's all about the win. So punishment or no punishment it should not affect anyone. Clan quits, the other clan wins. One or 2 clan members quit, that's their problem. No harm done to you.

1) they would leave because they are loosing badly and will get upset and thus rage quit like happens all the time even in parties of friends. Something needs to be done to discouarge it as much as possible. Punsih the entire clan and make them not want to play with them even more until they prove they have changed.

2) irrelevant if a person has that bad of a conection they should not be playing games online where their sudden departure has an effect on other players. No excuses at all, 0 tolerance for it. either get the isp to fix it if is on their end or buy better equipment to fix it if on the players end. Score loss is not enough it must hurt them where they care the most which is stats.

#2 It is not the servers that are the problem since bo2 does not use servers other than for matchmaking itself. Once in the game it is the players and their connections that have the control over who stays or not based upon lag and connection, not some outside server.

DNF stats cause harassment of players and is not a good thing, some games may try and use it but would not be widely accepted by Cod players. But maybe it would work to some degree but it alone would not be enough to stop players. For some will still not care. even my own suggestion will not stop it completely I know this.

People quit on BO2 all the time because BO2 is a piece of crap. It's had lag issues since day one and has NOT improved.

Unless you can prove someone has an excellent connection to a match, you can't possibly be able to judge them on whether or not their rage quit was justifiable or not. Ghosts on XB360 will still be P2P. So, if there is bad lag, people will quit matches. Until everyone is on playing on dedicated servers, you will really have no grounds for punishing people for quitting.

The beauty of the dedicated servers for XB1 is that people who quit won't affect the match. Nor will anyone's own connection affect other players. Dedicated servers will you give you an experience relative to your OWN connection. Make COD purely a team based game where selfish players are punished, then you have a point. Hackers should be punished. Boosters should be punished. Other then those situations you really have no basis for punishment.

Bo2 is not nearly as crap as some people claim. Just a lot of people expect things to be perfect in an imperfect world and it is not going to happen. MW2 was crap for me at times, WaW was crap for me at times, BO was crap for me at times. MW3 was crap for me at times. None of the so called better games was any better then BO2 connection wise in my memory and yes I played them all.

People quit because they dont like loosing, they dont like not being as good as they thought they were. They rage when the game is not playing how they feel it should becasue of their belief they are better than they really are. The quiting was not just do to lag like you want to make it sound like so much. It was peoples ego and not being able to handle loosing to someone else.

People quiting even on the X1 will still have effects for the team they are on and quit. it may not protect their stats anymore but it still causes the team to be down a player and at a disadvantage compared to the team not missing any players. Dedis will not do as you expect unless you live close to the dedi hub or have the choice of which dedi to play on. Which I dont really see Ghosts on the X1 doing. CoD is meant to be a team based game which is why I hope they do not let lone wolfs in CvC matches at all.

There is plenty for basis for punishing players that do not play in the spirit of the game and just **** around because they can becuase there is no punishment for it. Do any of the things that is done on a console game on pc and you would be kciked and banned from the server if it was rented.

People quit because they dont like loosing, they dont like not being as good as they thought they were. They rage when the game is not playing how they feel it should becasue of their belief they are better than they really are. The quiting was not just do to lag like you want to make it sound like so much. It was peoples ego and not being able to handle loosing to someone else.

BO2 is crap. That's my experience compared to previous COD titles. Every other COD was ten times better then BO2. BO2 has tiny maps, crappy matchmaking, horrible hit detection. All of these are worse then my experience with previous COD games.

Try saying "SOME people quit because they don't like losing." That would be more accurate. I don't mind losing as long as the game plays smoothly most of the time. I'm trying to have fun. But with tiny maps (BO2) you get only ONE playstyle which I refer to as "clusterfk". With crappy matchmaking (again BO2), you are matched up with people from all over the place, causing higher lag then had the match been made up of local players. And with horrible hit detection (hello BO2), you get imbalanced gameplay.

It is not some it is most people. Most of those that quit is because they cannot handle loosing or having their precious stats effected by the the deaths they feel were not fair.

BO2 is not crap. MW3 was just as bad if not worse at launch. BO was just as bad if not worse at launch. No game in this series has ever been perfect or good or anyone near it. You are wearing rose tinted glasses if you think otherwise.

Hit detection works in the game just as good as it did in mw2 or any other game that others try to claim was better. I had just as many hit detection problems in the so called great games of MW/WaW/MW2 as this game.

How about you stop trying tell me the game was so terrible when really it just did not play the way you wanted it too and never was going to either. You expected too much from the game and that is your fault not the games at all. So no the game itself was not crap. your view of it and your beleif of it that it was may be your personal feelings but that does not make it fact or true either.

It is not some it is most people. Most of those that quit is because they cannot handle loosing or having their precious stats effected by the the deaths they feel were not fair.

BO2 is not crap. MW3 was just as bad if not worse at launch. BO was just as bad if not worse at launch. No game in this series has ever been perfect or good or anyone near it. You are wearing rose tinted glasses if you think otherwise.

Hit detection works in the game just as good as it did in mw2 or any other game that others try to claim was better. I had just as many hit detection problems in the so called great games of MW/WaW/MW2 as this game.

How about you stop trying tell me the game was so terrible when really it just did not play the way you wanted it too and never was going to either. You expected too much from the game and that is your fault not the games at all. So no the game itself was not crap. your view of it and your beleif of it that it was may be your personal feelings but that does not make it fact or true either.

Forget it, trialstardragon. You are clearly so arrogant to the point of stupidity. BO1 was as bad at launch, but the lag issue was tackled within the first three months from release. BO2 however has remained a piece of garbage to this day, especially regarding lag.

"How about you stop trying tell me the game was so terrible when really it just did not play the way you wanted it too and never was going to either."

You don't get it. You arrogantly assume that because other people have a different experience then you that it's because the game "just did not play the way you wanted it too..." No. It doesn't play the way it's SUPPOSED to. BO2 should play the same for everyone. Lag can be adjusted whether the game is P2P or on dedicated servers.

Because lag has not been dealt with in BO2 players experience the game differently, instead of in a more balanced way. WIth BO1, the lag was tackled and the experience amongst players was more balanced. I could hear it in the comments by players during the game, and in posts in the forums. BO1's lag was improved. However, BO2's lag is still worse then any previous COD. Drift0r, who posts videos of his COD tips on YouTube, has said that his experience with BO2 has been fine. GOOD FOR HIM!! There's one vote.

Unfortunately, based on (actual) comments during the game and posts in the BO2 forums, it's clear that BO2 is the worst experience for MOST players then any previous COD - based on the fact that MORE people are complaining about BO2 (to this day) then previous COD games. You can find tons of videos on YouTube proving the poor performance of BO2. I'm happy for you that you've had a stellar experience with BO2. You're lucky. However, some of us have not been so lucky. I love the COD series. I'll probably keep following the series. Except I'll be more hesitant when Tryhard (aka Treyarch) comes out with their next COD.

So, go on, keep enjoying your version of BO2. In the meantime, I'll stick with the truth. The truth that BO2 offers lots of lag, poor hit detection (past COD is irrelevant), and crappy matchmaking (the worst ever) for SOME people. See, I'm willing to say "some" because - unlike you - I don't pretend to KNOW everyone COD player on the planet.